Objective 8. Introduce legislation / adopt regulations to implement management objectives

Objective 8. Introduce legislation / adopt regulations to implement management objectives.

Strategic Action 8.A Evaluate Connecticut’s authority to restrict the introduction of specific aquatic species designated as threats to the ecology and economy of the state.

Strategic Action 8.B Make general recommendations for additional state and federal legislative needs to minimize impacts from ANS.

Strategic Action 8.C Make general recommendations for additional state and federal legislative needs to minimize impacts from ANS.

Strategic Action 8.D Introduce a funding bill to provide seed money for selected management actions.

Task 8.D.1 Institute a boating registration fee (invasives fee).

Strategic Action 8.E Develop a system of enforcement actions / fines.

Strategic Action 8.F Mandate that water companies do monitoring.

Strategic Action 8.G Have invasive species be declared a form of biological pollution.

Strategic Action 8.H Streamline the permitting process.

Strategic Action 8.I Prohibit sales from out-of-state.

Strategic Action 8.J Determine what actions can be done about invasives on private property.

Strategic Action 8.K Determine who owns the priority lake bottom.

6. Implementation Table

[[ PAB: This table is required by the federal ANS program. We will work on this for the next draft, when, hopefully, the tasks have been narrowed down a bit more. It requires detailed information on who will be contributing how much time and funding. ]]

6. Program Monitoring and Evaluation

[[ PAB NOTE: The purpose of this section is to describe how CT will monitor progress towards meeting the Goals and Objectives outlined above. Any thoughts yet? ]]

Glossary

[[NOTE: Current Source: Massachusetts Invasive Plant Working Group, 2003]]

[[NOTE: make sure use is consistent throughout the plan. I will be working on this more for the next draft. Please contribute your suggestions. ]]

cultivar: [[need definition]]
invasive species: plants that have spread into native or minimally managed plant systems in Massachusetts. These plants cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming dominant and/or disruptive to those systems. (Under this definition all synonyms, species, subspecies, varieties, forms, and cultivars of that species are included unless proven otherwise by a process of scientific evaluation).
indigenous species: otherwise a species that occurs natively in Massachusetts. Indigenous species often have a pre-colonial presence (pre 1500) or have arrived in the region more recently without the aid of human intervention, Synonymous with native species.
non-indigenous species: a species that is non native or naturally occurring (based on its biology, phylogeny, distribution and current knowledge about the species) within Massachusetts. A species may be indigenous to North America but nonindigenous in Massachusetts. Synonymous with non-native species.
naturalized species: a non-indigenous taxon that occurs without the aid and benefits of cultivation in Massachusetts. Further, it implies two biological points: it freely and regularly reproduces in the wild, sexually or asexually, and occurrences persist over time.
biologic potential: the ability of a species to increase its number, either sexually and/or asexually.
spatial gaps: this term is used in reference to the ability of a species to disperse away from existing occurrences. The concept of crossing spatial gaps is sued to distinguish those species that can disperse over discontinuities and become established elsewhere form species that spread across a habitat only by continual, uninterrupted growth.
minimally managed habitats: Minimally managed habitats are habitats where management efforts and investments of time, money and labor are infrequent or non-existent. These habitats may have been intensively managed for anthropogenic reasons at one time in their history. Ins ome instances, management may be more intense but management id done for conservation purposes and is primarily aimed at preserving elements of biological diversity such as imperiled species or critical natural communities. Minimally managed habitats are similar to “natural areas” but the distinction is made in order to remove bias, misconceptions or ambiguities that surround the term “natural area.”
intensively managed habitats: intensively managed habitats are habitats or land systems where management efforts and investments of time, money and labor occur frequently. Examples include manicured lawns, landscaped grounds, gardens, roadsides or agricultural lands for crops or livestock.
occurrence: existing example of a species on the landscape.
natural plant community: a natural plant community is an association or assemblage of plant species that repeatedly occur together in reoccurring patterns in a specific type of habitat. This assemblage can be characterized by dominant species and biological properties. A natural plant community implies a minimally managed situation where all or most of the species that make up the assemblage are indigenous to the defined area.

Literature Cited

ANS Task Force, “Guidance for State and Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans. “ http://www.anstaskforce.gov/state_guidance.htm
Balcom, N. 1994. Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea. Aquatic Immigrants of the Northeast fact sheet No. 4. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication No. CT-SG-94-05. 2 pp.
Balcom, N. and E. Rohmer. 1994. Zebra Mussel Awareness and Boat Use Patterns Among Boaters using Three “High Risk” Connecticut Lakes. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication No. CT-SG-94-03. 17pp.
Bay Journal. 2004. 2^nd Strain of Bonamia parasite found, may pose threat to ariakensis. The Cheapeake Bay Newsletter, Alliance of the Chesapeake Bay. 14(1):7. March.
Blankenship, K. 2004. Scientists urge officials to proceed slowly with ariakensis. Bay Journal. The Cheapeake Bay Newsletter. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 14(1):1,6-7. March.
***Brousseau, D., P. Korchari, and C. Pflug. 2000. Food Preference Studies of the Asiatic Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) from Western Long Island Sound. Pp. 200-207 In: Marine Bioinvasions, Proceedings of the First National Conference. 24-27 January 1999. MIT Sea Grant Program 00-2.
Burke, Tina. 2001. Identifying Ballast Water Management Practices in Massachusetts - A Step Toward Assessing the Risk of Shipboard Introductions of Aquatic Invasive Species into the Waters of Massachusetts. A report to the Massachusetts Port Authority 15 pp.
Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
***Carlton, J. and J. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: the Global transport of Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science 261:78-82.
Chapman, J., T. Miller, and E. Coan. 2003. Live Seafood Species as Recipes for Invasion. Conservation Biology 17(5):1386-1395.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and the National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant. NTIS Report No. PB96-166525. 246 pp.
***Cohen, A. and J. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Extuary: A case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay amd Delta. Washington (DC): US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cohen, A., J. Carlton, and M. Fountain. 1995. Introduction, dispersal, and potential impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenus in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Biology 122:225-237.
Crow, G.E. and C.B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North

America, Vol. 1 and 2. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.
***DMF News. 1996. European Oysters: harmful invader or potential new fishery on the North Shore? MA Division of Marine Fisheries, Publication No. 17020-12-7000. Pp. 6-7.
Fishman, K., R. Leonard, and F. Shah. XXXX. Economic Evaluation of Connecticut Lkaes with Alternative Water Quality Levels. University of CT (Funded by CT DEP and Storrs Ag Exp Station) – need rest of citation….)
Ford, S. 2001. Pests, parasites, diseases, and defense mechanisms. Pp. 591-628 in The Biology of the Hard Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne), eds. J. Kraeuter and M. castagna, eds., Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam.
***Halstead, J., J. Michaud, S. Hallas-Burt, and J. Gibbs. 2003. Hedonic Analysis of Effects of a Nonnative Invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) Lakefront Properties. Environmental Management 32(3):391-398.
Harding, J., R. Mann, and V. Clark. 2003. Veined Rapa Whelks: Aliens in the Chesapeake. (CD-ROM). VIMS Educational Series Publication No. 56, VA Sea Grant Publication No. VSG-03-14.
Hellquist, B.C. 2001. A Guide to Selected Non-Native Aquatic Species in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. 18 pp.
Interagency Task Force On Invasive Aquatic Plants and Nuisance Species. October 10, 2002. State of Maine Action Plan for Managing Invasive Aquatic Species.” http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/topic/invasives/invplan.htm
Kraft, C. and L. Johnson. 2000. Regional differences in rates and patterns of North American inland lake invasions by zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). Can .J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:993-1001.
***Lerner, N. and P. Heimowitz. 2000. Aquatic Invasive Species: A guide to Least-Wanted Aquatic Organisms of the Pacific Northwest. Washington Sea Grant Publication No. WSG-MR 00-02. 8pp.
***Lohrer, A. 2000. Mechanisms and Consequences of an Exotic Crab Species Invasion. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 164 pp.
***Lohrer, A., R. Whitlatch, K. Wada, and Y. Fukui. 2000. Using Niche Theory to Understand Invasion Success: A Case Study of the Asian Shore Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus. Pp. 57-60
***Lohrer, A. and R. Whitlatch. 1997. Ecological studies on the recently introduced Japanese shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus), in eastern Long Island Sound. Pp. 49-60 In: Balcom, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Northeast Conference on Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, Groton, CT.
Mann, R. and S. Waters. 1998. The veined rapa whelk, Rapana venosa, found in Virginia waters. Virginia Sea Grant Marine Advisory No. 69.

Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group. December 2002. “Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan.” http://www.state.ma.us/czm/invasivemanagementplan.htm

McMahon, Robert. 1992. Personal communication.
Murray, T., P. Rich, and E. Jokinen. 1993. Invasion Potential of the Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas), in Connecticut: Predictions from Water Chemistry Data. Connecticut Insitute of Water Resources, Special Report No. 36. 33pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 325 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife. November 1993. “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan.” (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/noninsp.pdf)
***NOAA News Online. 2003. Story 2125, Invasive Species found on Georges Bank. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2003/s2125.htm
O, Neill, Jr., C. 1996. Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels: the 1995 National Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse Study. Reprinted with modifications from: Dreissena! 7(2):1-5, summer 1996, and Dreissena! 7(3):1-12, Fall 1996. Dreissena polymorpha Technical Collection Reprint. New York Sea Grant. 18pp.
Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs associated with nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50(1):53-65.
Pimentel D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Invasive Species in the United States. Cornell University News Release. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html.
***Ruesink, J. 1998. Scope and History of Biological Invasions. Yale Forest Forum Review: Invasive Alien Species 1(2):11-14.
Smith, L.D, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 1999-2001. Research and Outreach to Prevent and Control Aquatic Nuisance Species Invasions: Identification and Ranking of Transport Vectors of Marine Bioinvaders To and From New England: A Proposal to the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 8 pp.
***Sunila, I., J. Karolus, and J. Volk. 1999. A new epizootic of Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX), a haplosporidian oyster parasite, in Long Island Sound, Connecticut. J.Shellfish Res. 18(1):169-174.
Thresher, R.E. 2000. Key Threats from Marine Bioinvasions: A Review of Current and Future Issues. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. pp.24-34.
***Whitlatch, R. R. Osman, and N. Balcom. 2003-2005. Evaluation of the Importance of Ship Hull Fouling by Privately-Owned Vessels as a Vector for the Transport of invasive Species along the Eastern Seaboard. Two-year proposal to the National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. In progess. Hull fouling study – need full citation.
Whitlatch, R.B., R.W. Osman, A. Frese, R. Malatesta, P. Mitchell, and L. Sedgewick. 1995.  The ecology of two introduced marine ascidians and their effects on epifaunal organisms in Long Island Sound.  Proceedings of the Northeast Conference on Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species.  Connecticut Sea Grant College Program.  CT-SG-95-04. pp. 29-48.

Appendices

Directory: ProjANS
ProjANS -> Rev. March 15, 2004 Connecticut Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan
ProjANS -> Table Aquatic Nuisance Species Fish Pathogens Pathogen Species Viral
ProjANS -> Ct-dep marine Fisheries Division